Polarization and the US Electoral College

James Siderius
{"title":"Polarization and the US Electoral College","authors":"James Siderius","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3564820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In light of the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections, there has been doubt about whether the electoral college is a \"fair'' way of selecting a presidential candidate. Rather than taking a position on the issue, this paper attempts to quantify the importance of such a discussion. Toward this end, we consider a voting model based on regional and personal biases, which provides a unifying framework for other probabilistic models in the literature along with offering new ones. Our main contribution is the derivation of simple expressions for the asymptotic likelihood of a \"referendum paradox,'' whereby one candidate wins the election according to the electoral college, but loses the popular vote. We then consider how this likelihood varies depending on the heterogeneity of opinions within and across regions of a country, which may also differ in population. We conclude that rising polarization of political beliefs leading up to the 2020 election has made these two election formats increasingly more incompatible.","PeriodicalId":150934,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Elections eJournal","volume":"129 6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Institutions: Elections eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3564820","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In light of the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections, there has been doubt about whether the electoral college is a "fair'' way of selecting a presidential candidate. Rather than taking a position on the issue, this paper attempts to quantify the importance of such a discussion. Toward this end, we consider a voting model based on regional and personal biases, which provides a unifying framework for other probabilistic models in the literature along with offering new ones. Our main contribution is the derivation of simple expressions for the asymptotic likelihood of a "referendum paradox,'' whereby one candidate wins the election according to the electoral college, but loses the popular vote. We then consider how this likelihood varies depending on the heterogeneity of opinions within and across regions of a country, which may also differ in population. We conclude that rising polarization of political beliefs leading up to the 2020 election has made these two election formats increasingly more incompatible.
两极分化和美国选举团
从2000年和2016年的总统选举来看,有人质疑选举团制度是否“公平”地选出总统候选人。本文试图量化这种讨论的重要性,而不是在这个问题上采取立场。为此,我们考虑了一个基于区域和个人偏见的投票模型,它为文献中的其他概率模型提供了一个统一的框架,并提供了新的模型。我们的主要贡献是推导出“公投悖论”渐近可能性的简单表达式,即一名候选人根据选举人团赢得选举,但在普选中失败。然后,我们考虑这种可能性如何根据一个国家内部和跨地区的意见异质性而变化,这也可能因人口而异。我们的结论是,在2020年大选之前,政治信仰的两极分化日益加剧,使得这两种选举形式越来越不相容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信